Great Western Coffee Shop

An interesting article from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19435464):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19435464

Also, on the same theme from the BBC, there is a 'Top 10' list of signal boxes in England, compiled by the author of the English Heritage report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19464080

The report published by English Heritage, 'Railway Signal Boxes, A Review' can be read at the following link:
http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/028-2012WEB.pdf

My favourite from that 'Top 10' list? Birmingham New Street. A surprising choice some might think, but I'm actually a bit of a fan of Brutalist architecture. A progression from the earlier Modernist and Bauhaus styles. It's a shame you can't get a decent picture of the front of New Street Signal Box because of all the foreground clutter of OHLE.

Different in style, I also like the Southern Region Art Deco/Odeon style boxes such as the ones at Woking and Templecombe. It's a shame that Templecombe failed listing building status in 2011, so remains under threat of demolition or redevelopment.

Anyone else have a favourite signal box?

I am involved in a project that will ultimately see the demise of London Bridge Panel Signal Box, and I not even a signalling engineer ;D

Purely because it is local to me I like the one at Colthrop near thatcham which if I recall correctly had a red phone box opposite.

I also like the one at Reigate. I also seem to remember there are some interesting disused boxes on the North Downs line

(http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/Boyamijealous_7108a707/IMG_1128.jpg)

I wanna push the plunger!  ;D

"The Bouncy Castle"  http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddtmmm/3580908809/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddtmmm/3580908809/)

 >:(

I was shocked when I heard that it had been listed. As far as I a concerned every bit of 60/70s concrete needs to be pulled down and replaced asap! Scars of Great Britain. I'm fuming that it will grace the entrance to Great Britain's second city for commuters forever.

Which one? The one that sends out the 'EMERGENCY. ALL STOP' message, or the one that blows Bristol Panel to smithereens, clearing the path for trains to once again use the Brunel train shed?  :P ;) ;D

Have to say, I quite like that one as well. Bit too young for listing, but it does have some architectural merit.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 'Brutalist' as a name is always likely to divide opinion, but these structures are products of their time, and examples should be preserved.

Today, 150 years later, we all love 'Victorian' railway architecture. Yet back in the day I'm sure there were forebears of Btline who were decrying these modern monstrosities. In fact I'm sure of their opposition. Just read up on the problems the GWR faced building their railway through Bath. NiMBY's are nothing new! Even after a sympathetic architectural style was agreed, Bath residents continued to petition against the building of the line and it's stations.

Who are we to say that in another 100 years people won't be dewy-eyed for 1960s constructs such as New Street Signal Box, Harlow Town Station or the Euston concourse? With that last one my own opinion is somewhat divided, although I actually quite like the current Euston station. Yes, Euston needed redeveloping in the 1960s to cope with the traffic and passenger footfall at the time, but sweeping away everything that went before was perhaps a step too far. That said, the current Euston has architectural merit. Take a look up and around next time you are there.

Oldest, old, new, newest. They can all co-exist. As can sympathetic renewals of existing buildings. The best of the types from each era deserve preservation. They form an important historical document through the ages, and demolishing robs future generations of tangible references to the past. Photos aren't enough. English Heritage are there to protect all styles and eras, be that Norman, Medieval, Gothic Revival, Victorian, Art Deco, Brutalist, Archigram, and so on into the future.

Personally, I see little architectural merit in Shrewsbury's 'Severn Bridge Junction' signal box, but that is listed. Give it another 50 years and I may come to like it.  ;)

Each to their own.

BNM , I am surprised at your generalisation! Where is your supporting evidence? :)

All joking aside, I totally agree about looking back in the future and viewing the "carbunkles" of today with more affection. There are those, who in the days of steam, viewed locomotives as dirty smelly things but in the age of diesel and electric units we now regards the steam monsters as heritage items.

Sorry for any spelling errors :)

The reaction from landowners and others when the railways were being built provides a link to another thread on here - in that a number of stations were not built in the centre of towns because the good people of the time felt the railway was an intrusion.  Indeed in some cases whole towns were bypassed.  Abingdon, now in Oxfordshire, but then in Berkshire is a case in point.  By the time the town realised what it was missing the railway had gone further south through Didcot and the best that could be offered was a branch line - which has now closed.

The Head of Eton College was another opponent - so Windsor & Eton Riverside and Windsor & Eton Central was the best they got.

Even when the Railways were built to the towns that the Station served, in many cases the Railway was built to only serve the side of the Town, to save the Cost of buying up buildings.

The location of the Railway in many cases caused the town to GROW around the Station area.

Paddington Euston Kings Cross etc were built on the edge of what was then London.

The late on the scene (1890's) Great Central London Extension was a line built through cities like Leicester and Nottingham but at great cost, Nottingham Victoria station itself cost over ^1,000,000 in the 19thC, with over 1300 houses and buildings demolishied to clear the site.

Coming back to Signal boxes it's a shame to see the end of signal boxes,
When a Signal Box is taken out off use it's the end of an ERA, that building may well have been staffed 24/7 for over 100 years, the whole of a Man's working life might have been in that one box!

Whichever makes the biggest bang, bignosemac. Whilst I'm sure that slab of iron curtain austerity is beloved by its mother, and whilst I pay tribute to the hard work done therein, it can't have much by way of sentimental value, and none at all in the artistic stakes. Seeing the new electric trains running over its shadow and into the Digby Wyatt shed will be a massive indication of progress, one the stovepipe-hatted cigar chomper himself would surely applaud.


Get it out with Optrex. (S Milligan)

A small-scale example perhaps is Severn Beach, which was only a farm when the railway was built to link Avonmouth to Pilning in 1900. With its exotic location and tropical climate*, it gave the railway the idea of building a resort, which opened in 1922. The rest is history, with some geography and economics.

(*Alright, it was the opening times for the pubs, longer than Bristol's, that really made it viable).

Probably good that you didn't quote the full "Values '67" poem by Spike.  :P ;) ;D

Victorian and Georgian architecture has looked good for hundreds of years. Never seen as "ugly".
I'm sure it will always do so.

Concrete was only in fashionable for a few years (and only used as it was quick and cheap in post war Britain) until people realised the mistake.

Yes, at the time, the railways ploughing through cities was unpoular, but these lines are not seen as ugly anymore (e.g. Durham Viaduct) but as landamarks.
The ploughing of concrete motorways and dual carriageways will NEVER be popular. Will the concrete Westway ever been seen as a landmark? NO - always as an eyesore and blight for the families who's bedrooms back onto it.

I fear we are making a similar mistake now as the 60s with our "wacky" artchitecutre e.g. for New Street station. I'm sure in 25 years these wacky buildings will be seen as scars (although perhaps not in an ugly place like B'ham).
Why they can't build a Victorian/Georgian style building for the station I don't know!

The answer is a four letter word:

COST 

There would have been people that would have seen them as blots on the landscape indeed many land owners insisted that railway compaines built in a certain style before they removed their objections.


Cost is one thing, a Victorian/Georgian style signal box building is not fit for modern way of working.

The railways have in their 200 years been innovators, as engineers we are always looking for new ways of doing things, having said that if there is a way to reuse existing building then we do and example is the reuse of St Pancras, the way Paddington is being transformed, Blackfriers and soon London Bridge Stns.  Must admit Reading is very radical reuse of space  ;D

We (the railways) cannot stand still, if we dwell in the past we will not serve the country.

While I enjoy seeing preserved Victorian/Georgian buildings as much as I enjoy Tudor and medieval I also like the Shard and the Gherkin

The difference is that the Shard and the Gerkin have good design and are fairly neutral and unobtrusive despite their hight (unlike the 70s NatWest tower that is a ugly blot and needs to come down)

I'm all for living in the present, but let's make the buildings look attractive! By all means build New Street using glass - but does it have to look like a spaceship? I doubt the cost would change a penny (probably cheaper!)

Remember NR's new station design that was put up at Corby and a few other places, it has now been rejected at some places (e.g. Kidderminster) because locals don't want their new station looking ugly.
The original station at Kidderminster was built in a Tudor style. The replacement is now going to "echo the SVR station opposite". Anything is better than the ugly, concrete box slapped down by a cash strapped BR in the 70s.

Newcastle station looks like a Greek Temple. The list goes on...

As for Victorian "not fit for purpose", does anyone think a station like Paddington is not fit for purpose? The original section must be one of the best designed terminals in the world (the far platforms, added later, excepted).

I will agree with BNM that Euston is probably THE best London terminal for passenger flow and layout. It's just a shame the arch didn't remain and it was build of concrete.